Precisely. The ToE can qualify as an intelligence....any organizing principle that enables the awesome complexity all around us.
What ID has done is demonstrated that the ToE has significant problems...it was a criticism of weaknesses in ToE.
The major criticism is that there is not enough time to accomodate the vast complexity evident in the lifeforms all around us.
You've made that point several times. Care to provide a link?
What ID has done is demonstrated that the ToE has significant problems...it was a criticism of weaknesses in ToE.
The major criticism is that there is not enough time to accomodate the vast complexity evident in the lifeforms all around us.
If your interpretation is true then ID is merely a subset of falsification hypotheses for the ToE, just like any other such subset that evolutionists routinely develop and test. As such, once an ID proponent devises an observable, reproducible test that falsifies a part of the ToE it will be accepted, and either incorporated into a revision of the ToE or force a revolutionary paradigm shift in interpreting all the evidence as a whole. Until that time, however, it has nothing to offer that the ToE doesn't already provide.
In other words, ID will be accepted as soon as it does its own scientific footwork, and stops trying to get over by demanding that it wins by default until the ToE proponents do the job for them.
What real theory in science has ever been about another theory being wrong? So much so that it is little more than a grab-bag of screeches against that other theory?
A real theory has something to say directly about how the world works. It's not just about what doesn't happen but what does. But, somehow, ID has to beg off on being "that kind of a theory." It refuses to be held to such a standard and asks for a change in the rules.